Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00911/C Applicant: Miss Charlotte Quirk Proposal: Change of use from retail to a dog day-care and dog grooming parlour Site Address: Unit 2 Snugborough Trading Estate Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4LH Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 24.08.2016 Site Visit: 24.08.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site represents Unit 2 on the Snugborough Estate in Braddan. The unit is located to the northwest of the estate and is the eastern of two semi-detached units; the adjoining unit (Unit 1) is the northwesternmost in the estate, which to the west and north borders the Commissioner housing and associated play area. To the southeast is a detached unit (Unit 2a) and larger building than the pair of semi-detached dwellings. The unit is, at present, in use in association with the adjacent Unit 2a and together appear to store and sell carpets.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed here is the change of use of Unit 2 into a "dog daycare and grooming facility". This would be open between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday (for "daycare and grooming" only) and Saturday 10am to 5pm ("grooming only"). - 2.2 No changes to the appearance of the building are proposed. - 2.3 It is not known what will become of the existing use, though it is noted that the owner of Unit 2 appears to be the proprietor of the carpet-selling business.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has not been the subject of any applications considered material to the assessment of this proposal; Unit 2a gained approval for a change of use to a car repairs / service and sales under PA 96/00231/C, but it would appear from the existing use that this has not been taken up.
"The proposed use is fairly unique in that it does not readily fall into any established use class and is not a common use. The area is zoned for retail and within the village of Onchan, which would satisfy Business Policy 10. On the principle of the business being a commercial operation with some
retail, it is considered that the proposed use would not be contrary to that of the use class for the area.
"However, the care of dogs can often involve the generation of noise from barking and the comings and goings of customers in vehicles. In such facilities in built up areas, particularly residential, the use can result in a nuisance issues arising from the barking dogs. In this instance the dogs are to be kept indoors while being looked after and noises from the premises would be contained within the building. Excessive barking could be addressed by those members of staff who are caring or grooming the dogs as opposed to enduring the noise within the building. It is not in the interests of those working within the building to have dogs barking loudly, frequently or constantly.
"The proposed use would not be considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 22 where an unacceptable harm would be caused to the residents or other users of the adjoining units from noise pollution as the dogs would be cared for within the building and far enough away from the residential properties to the rear."
"There are four parking spaces allocated to application unit. With a dog grooming salon, customers are only likely to visit the premises to drop off and pick up. Given that a dog can be sometimes be at the salon for long periods of time during the day with visits usually based on appointment only, it is considered that the four parking spaces are acceptable. It is also important to acknowledge that Highway Services have not objected to the application and the premises are already on a busy junction, next to a petrol forecourt, shop and pharmacy with an established access and egress."
3.3 It is understood that the applicant is (or until recently was) running the business from an isolated location on the outskirts of St. Mark's; some members of the Planning Committee may recall refusing a retrospective application (PA 16/00381/C) on grounds that the highway access was dangerous, and also in respect of potential noise nuisance associated with the use. An appeal against that decision was recently dismissed. - 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The application site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Industrial on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. Section 6 of that Plan refers to Industrial development but contains no policies of material relevance to the assessment of this proposal. - 4.2 In respect of the Strategic Plan, Business Policy 10, Environment Policy 22 and are relevant.
"This proposal is to change the use from a carpet warehouse/sales room to a dog daycare facility. There is no car parking standard provided within the Strategic Plan as this is a very specific use.
"The applicant is required to provide a justification that there will be sufficient car parking to accommodate staff, servicing and customers who will be dropping off/picking up dogs.
"Highway Services request that the application is deferred until the applicant has demonstrated that there is adequate car parking provision in order that customers do not park elsewhere in the industrial estate."
"There will be me and one other member of staff at daycare but we will only be taking up one parking space as I will be driving us there and back every day.
"The daycare that I currently have has 6 car parking spaces available and we have around 15 customers coming and going in the morning between 8am-9.30am, and again from 4.30pm-6pm (Monday-Friday) and there is always more than enough parking space. We will have the same amount of customers in the Snugborough trading estate location, and with there still being 7 parking spaces available I don't think parking will be an issue.
"On Saturdays, customers are given an allocated time to get to us for their grooming. There will never be more than 2 cars at a time (excluding mine) parking on a Saturday.
"Monday to Friday, the only people coming to us are customers dropping off and picking up their dogs, so there is no worry about different people filling up the spaces during the day as we aren't open to the public, we are a drop off and pick up centre only."
5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the application on 31.08.2016. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key issues in this case are not especially dissimilar to those addressed in the case officer's assessment of PA 16/00817/C in Onchan: is the use acceptable for the site and wider area, and is there sufficient parking available?
6.2 In the first instance, clearly the industrial estate would (by its very name) normally be protected from any other form of use. It is worth noting the Strategic Plan definition of 'light industrial':
"…the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles; the use of light industrial buildings for research and development of products or processes is permitted by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005."
6.3 In this case, the use is such that it could probably not be readily carried on within a residential area, or even near any residential property at all, without there being some level of impact on the living conditions of those nearby. (Indeed, it is noted that even the applicant's current premises in St. Mark's was near only one dwelling and vociferous objection to the application was received from the owner / occupier thereof.) As such, while not being '[light] industrial' in any definitional sense, the use proposed for the unit would have similar impacts of such a use. Accordingly, it is appropriate to conclude that the impact from that use would not be altogether dissimilar. - 6.4 It is also appropriate to remember that land is often zoned as 'industrial' as a means to provide premises for uses that would have impacts undesirable in a residential area. Such land is not always or necessarily zoned purely to provide industrial uses to reflect a specific demand for same. - 6.5 It is also noted that the existing use of Unit 2 might be said to be similar in terms of such 'impact'.
6.6 It is also to be remembered that such a use as this was recently refused in part because of its noise nuisance impact on one nearby dwelling; as such, there is a strong case to be made that an industrial estate location, not nearby other dwellings, is amongst the best locations for such a use as this. - 6.7 Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is, in use terms, acceptable, even if it does not comply with Business Policy 10. While conditions might normally be attached seeking to restrict the opening hours of such a business, this is generally with a view to the protection of neighbouring living conditions. No dwellings bound the site. Being mindful of the Committee's understandable view at their previous meeting that a condition restricting opening hours of an osteopath business on Tromode Estate was unnecessary even though a dwelling did sit adjacent the building in question, it is considered that no such condition is necessary on this occasion. - 6.8 Turning to the parking issues, the view of Highway Services is understood. There are either six or seven (the applicant has made conflicting statements during the course of the application) parking spaces nearby the application site (which is the building only) available for use. There is no real standard in the Strategic Plan for such a use in a location such as this and so it is difficult to know what would ordinarily be required. The building is roughly 350sqm and light and general industrial uses would require either 12 or seven spaces, depending on which standard was used. In view of how the site would likely be used (as explained by the applicant) it is considered that the amount of parking available is commensurate with the demand arising from its use. It is therefore considered that the application is acceptable on highway safety grounds.
7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 07.10.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development hereby approved relates to the Location Plan, Existing Floor Plan and Proposed Floor Plan, all date-stamped as having been received 2nd August 2016.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 17.10.2016
Signed : E RILEY Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
